[Roll] Dissenting technical arguments unwelcome (was: Re: trickle-mcast-04 - Clarify scope value of 3 - subnet-local)

Hi,

Several people in the ROLL WG, amongst others Rob Caigie and Don
Sturek, were interested in the topic of multi-link subnets and the
related multicast scope for MPL / for IPv6 in general [1].

This is an important technical topic and deserves due discussion on
this mailing list and 6man.

I think that both discussions (multi-link subnet and IPv6 multicast
scope 0x03) are closely related; because using "subnet" for a scope
that is meant to be network-wide would imply using (even mandating)
multi-link subnets, which I think is a bad idea. So in order to
explain why I think that the "subnet" scope is a bad idea, I needed to
explain why multi-link subnets are a bad idea.

I am, however, for the time being prohibited from continued
participation on this technical matter. The ROLL WG chairs sent me a
formal warning saying that:

 o my "comments about multi-hop subnets are not welcome on the ROLL list"

 o I should "refrain repeating them yet again, it is disruptive to the
conversation, and confuses many people."

 o this was a formal warning "as per RFC2418/BCP25, and taking
RFC3683/BPC83 and RFC3934/BCP94 into account, (particularly BCP93
section 1, paragraph 3) and BCP94 section 2, paragraph 2."

I am very sad to see that technical arguments are ejected from the
discussion by the ROLL Working Group Chairs if these comments are not
in line with their personal objectives.

I have sent an appeal to the IESG regarding this formal warning,
according to RFC2026, Section 6.5., "Process Failures", as I believe
that an open exchange of technical arguments is key to the work in any
IETF working group - and that issuing formal warnings simply to
suppress dissenting technical arguments is not beneficial to the IETF,
its participants, and its protocol designs.

[1] http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/roll/current/msg07951.html

Best regards
Ulrich

On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:32 AM, Ulrich Herberg <ulrich@herberg.name> wrote:
> I have pointed out two documents in my earlier email that explain in
> long detail why I believe that multi-hop subnets are a really bad
> idea. The AUTOCONF RFC 5889 presents an architecture for avoiding all
> these problems by using /128 prefixes. In that regards, a subnet wide
> flooding would be fairly uninteresting, as it would not go beyond a
> single router.
>
> Regards
> Ulrich
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:58 AM, Michael Richardson
> <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> wrote:
>>
>> I would still like an explanation of why "subnet" is the wrong term.
>>
>> When would scope-3 would be used such that it would not correspond to the set
>> of links on which a "/64" (or other size) is used?
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Roll mailing list
>> Roll@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/roll
>>